OCR Interpretation


Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, October 13, 1892, Image 3

Image and text provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92053945/1892-10-13/ed-1/seq-3/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for 3

CARLISLE'S KEYNOTE.
The Kentucky Economist Dis
sects High Tariff Claims.
ALWUCIi'S FALLACIES EXPOSED.
Vl.fc Tendency of Civilization Is to Pro
luce Cheaper Goods and Hijlier Wages.
The McKinley TSUI Reversed That Ten
dency The Cost of Living Increased by
That Act.
apologize to the senate for at tempt ingon
such aday as this, ami r.t so late a neriod in
the session, to occupy any part of its time
in ice discussion or a subject which we nil
agree cannot be disposed of; but the recent
report made by the committee on finance
in relation to the prices of commodi
ties, the rates of wages and the cost of liv
ing in the United States has been so
thoroughly misunderstood or so grossly
misrepresented in the public press and
elsewhere, t hat I have felt it to he the duty
of some one on th is side of t he chamber who
assisted in making that investigation to
state our views of Its results.
I think it is the unanimous opinion of
economists ana .statisticians who have in
vestigated the subject that for many years,
in all the great industrial and commercial
countries of the world, the prices of com
modities have been decreasing and the rates
of wages, especially in those occupations
which require a considerable degree of
skill and intelligence, have been increas
ing; of course there are very many and
very conspicuous and aggravating excep
tions to this general rnle, but they are i.11
attributable, in my opinion, to abnormal
and artificial conditions, created by nn
equal and unjust tax laws and by improper
governmental interference with the private
affairs of the people, discriminating in
favor of some and against others.
The Folly of Protection.
Whatever makes it easier for the people
to live decently and comfortably, what
ever makes the necessaries of life which
the people are bound to buy and use cheap
er and less expensive to the masses, is a
blessing to mankind, and 1 have never
been able to appreciate the wisdom of that
policy which compels men to work longer
and harder in order to nrocure food rai
ment and shelter for themselves and their
families; I have never been able to appre
ciate either the economic truth or the hu
manity of the proposition that the people
can be made happy and prosperous by tax
ation, whether the purpose of that taxa
tion be to defray extravagant expenditures
on the part of the government, or to in
crease the prices which the people pay for
what they eat, drink and wear.
Mr. President, any one who contends in
this day, as the senator from Nevada ( Mr.
Stewart) apparently has this morning,
that high prices of commodities are ben
eficial to the community at large, is at
war with the spirit of the age in which he
lives, at war with the genius of discovery
and invention which during the last half
century more than during any other like
period in the history of the world has
ameliorated the condition of mankind by
bringing ail the necessaries of life, and
many of its luxuries, within the reach of
every c::in who is willing to work.
I speak of production aud distribution
together, because cheap anil easy distribu
tion is just as important, both to the pro
ducer and to the consumer, as cheap and
easy production; therefore every shackle
imposed upon commerce, every restriction
upon honest trade, every interference with
the free exchange of products in the mar
kets of the world increases prices and de
prives the people of the benefits which
they have a right to enjoy, and which they
otherwise would enjoy, resulting from im
proved industrial and commercial methods.
But, Mr. President, it is unnecessary to
pursue this line of argument further, be
cause at last it appears to be admitted by
the friends of the protective system that
cheap commodities for the useof the people
are beneficial, and the senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Aldrich), speaking here three
days ago as the chosen champion of that
system, bases his defense of the tariff act
of 1890 almost solely upon the ground that
it bus reduced prices and enlarged the for
eign commerce of the country.
That was not the purpose of the authors
and supporters of that law at the time it
passed congress, as is conclusively shown
by the report which was made to the
house of representatives when the bill was
presented to that body. In that report Mr.
McKinley, speaking for himself and all
the Republican members of the committee,
said:
"We have not been so much concerned
about the prices of the articles we consume
as we have been to encourage a system of
home production which shall give fair re
muneration to domestic producers and fair
wages to American workmen, and by in
creased production and home competition
insure fair prices to consumers."
And again, the report says:
"Your committee has not sought by the
proposed legislation to further cut down
prices at the expense of our own prosperi
ty, but to provide with certainty against
that increasing competition from other
countries wliose conditions our people are
unwilling to adopt. We have not believed
that our people, already suffering from
low prices, can or will be satisfied with
legislation which will result in lower
prices."
lis Aivnc:itf-s Swept Aside.
Here is n clear and emphatic declaration
r7 the authors of the measure, that it was
not intended to reduce prices, that it would
not, in fact, rdnce prices, and that the
People would not be satisfied with any
legislation which would produce that re
sult. he theory that high prices of commodi
ties are beneficial to the community at
Jarge, aud that the McKinley law would
increase them, was abandoned by the ad
vocates of that measure immediately aftel
Its passage,, and in every part of the conn-
uy they faced about and either denied thai)
fcigber prices, in fact, prevailed or contend
ed that they were not nnvin v.- '
tariff act. The people, however, knew bet
ter from personal experience and observa
tion in their daily transactions, and in No
vember, 1890, the authors of that tariff act
were swept from the house of representa
tives by a majority of more than 800 000
votes. Never in the history of the coun
try has there been such a storm of popular
indignation against any single act of legis
lation as thut which overwhelmed the ad
vocates of this measure in 1890, and as a
result we now have the senator from Rhode
mi an tne otuer friends of the o-o-tective
system who have recently spoken
Upon the subject confessing that hhrli
prices are not beneficial to the people nd
that the original and avowed DurnoijTof
the act was wrong; in other words, they
now contend that the act has been a suc
cess solely because it failed to accomplish
what it was intended to accomplish.
Aldrich's False Conclusions.
My purpose here today is to show that
the tariff act of 1890 did, in fact, interfere
with this natural tendency toward a de
cline in the prices of commodities and a
rise in the rates of wages; that it did, in
fact, make it harder and more expensive
for the masses of the people of the United
States to live.
The senator here rend an extract from
the speech of Senator Aldrich, who claimed
that prices hail so far declined and wages
so far advanced as to make a total gain to
the people of f:2T,,0(Kl,(H)0 per year as a re
sult of the Mckinley bill and continued:
-Mr. i 'resident, I admit that on a single
iay niter tne passage of the McKinley bill.
mm curing t lie pernvl covered by the in
vestigation, the retail prices of the 215 ar
ticles selected by the committee, taking
them altogether and giving to each one
the same importance, 04-100ths of 1 one
percent, lower than they were at the lc
ginning of the period, and that on the
same day, which was the lastday included
in tne investigation, t he cost of living in
tne L ni ted States, giving to each article
its relative importance as an element in
expenditures for consumption, had de
creased 44-10Oths of 1 per cent, from the
rate prevailing at the leginning of the in
vestigation that is, the cost of living, in-
iiuiuuK rem, w men was not investigated
by the committee at all, had been reduced
Ti-ivim ui i jer cent, oeiow what It was
during the first three months of the in
vestigation. But that single day has been
separated by the senator from Rhode
island from all the other davs embraced
in the twenty-eight months, and taken as
the basis of all the tables presented and
statements made by him, as if it was a
fair representative of the whole nerind
The investigation began on the 1st day
oi .june, isk, ana continued month by
month In seventy different cities in the
Cm ted States until the 1st day of Septem
ber, 1891, embracing a period of twenty
eight months. The prices of these 215 ar
ticles for the first three months at these
seventy different places and at quite a
number of establishments in each place
were taken as the basis of the investiga
tion that is to say, the average prices
which prevailed during the months of
June, July and August, 1889, on all the
articles were taken as the unit of price,
each unit or index of price being repre
sented by 100, and as the prices subse
quently rose or fell the fact was noted, and
the percentage of rise or fall was recorded
in the tables. Now I submit to the senate
and the country that no just or valuable
conclusion for any purpose whatever can
be drawn from calculations bused upon
prices whicli prevailed on one single day
during those twenty -eight months, that
day being, as I have said, the last one on
which an investigation was made.
The Cost of Living Increased.
TSenator Carlisle here referred to a
statement of Senator Aldrich that in the
same timeLhe cost of living had increased
in England. He declared that the com
mittee had made no such inquiry; that no
such results could be drawn from any
facts before the committee, and that other
statements in Senator Aldrich's speech
were not in evidence before the committee,
and continued:
Mr. President, I propose to show, or at
least endeavor to show, that the prices of
commodities in the United States, whether
considered by wholesale or by retail, were
enormously increased by the passage of
the McKinley act and the agitat ion which
preceded it, and that the cost of living in
the United States, giving to each one of
these articles its proper degree of impor
tance in expenditures for consumption,
was increased during the period covered
by this investigation more than fcSSS.OOO.-
000, and that over $185,000,000 of that in
crease occurred after the passage of the act
of 1S90.
I venture to make the statement, which
I think nobody can refute, that a very
large proport ion of the increase in prices
of manufactured articles and in the cost of
living which occurred before the passage
of that act was on account of the fact that
it was pending in cougress with an almost
absolute knowledge on the part of the pro
ducers of protected articles everywhere
that it would lie passed and become a law.
I propose to show, in the second place.
that the rates of wages in fifteen substan
tially unprotected industries in this coun
try, selected by the committee, were in
creased during the period covered by the
Investigation, and that during the same
period the rates of wages in fifteen pro
tected industries in the United States, also
selected by the committee, fell, and that
the fall was greater after the passage of
the McKinley bill than it was during the
whole period preceding its passage.
Unless the 21o articles thus se ected by
the committee are fairly representative of
the total quantity of articles consumed by
the people, our investigation is worth but
little, so far as it attempts to ascertain the
cost of living. It would of course be
valuable to show the course of prices on
those 215 articles; but I repeat, unless they
fairly represent all the articles which enter
into consumption, the investigation is of
but little value so far as it attempts to
state the effect of increase In prices upon
the cost of living.
The senator here presented elaborated
tables showing a trick in the committee's
method of proving a decline in prices; it
took prices at a date in 1SS9, when they had
risen in anticipation or the JMcivmley bill,
and at another in 1S91, when they were ut
the lowest. He added:
To go no farther back to find the influ
ence of the McKinley act upon the retail
prices of commodities, we find that frvm
and including Oct. 1, 1S90, untU June 1,
1891, the prices increased as follows: On
Oct. 1, 1890, the increase was $1,333,333 over
the prices on Sept. 1; on Nov. 1, ItSK), tne
increase was $3,416,000; on Dec. 1, $7,500,
000; on Jan. 1, 1S91, it was $10,033,333; on
Feb. 1, 18S1, it was $11,083,333; on March 1,
1891, it was $11,080,000; on April 1 it was
$12,660,600; on May 1 it was $3,750,000. and
on June 1 it was $3,666,606.
What the People Spend.
Mr. President, there have been many at
tempts made to ascertain the total annual
expenditures of the people of the United
States for articles of consumption. Mr.
THE ARGUS, THURSDAY. OCTOmTR 13, 1892.
Edward Atkinson, a o-enf lumn v
b.-ii cms suoject a great deal of thought,
-stimates from our census reports and
?Jiiath,t0.fl,Le ttr-1 Population of
6000000 people m the United States 23,
000,000 are engaged in what are called gain-
-."lunpauuuf, earning wages, or salaries.
ana that the average annual income of
t""3 ,oou,uuu people, upon which they
and all the other people of the United
ciaces ciepena lor support, is $000, makin
ror the year $13,800,000,000. Deducting tf
ui. irum mat ior lederal, state and
municipal taxes and 10 per cent, for sav
ings or additions to the permanent wealth
3i tne country, there is left $11,582,000,000
to be expended by the people for their sup-
I he Hon. D. A. Wells, by a different pro
ress, arrives at the conclusion, after de
ducting 6 per cent, for taxes and 10 per
cent, for permanent savings or additions to
the wealth of the neonle. that there re
mains to lie expended for their support the
sum of $11,957,400,000, or a little more than
Mr. Atkinson estimates, but he thinks that
is somewhat too large.
If $10,000,000,000 represents the annual
expenditures for commodities, then $833,
B33.333 represents the monthly expendi
tures, and as we have the increase of prices
according to t he importance of the articles
stated by quarters, the result is not diffi
cult to ascertain.
1 ins is 1 he table heretofore referred to.
and it requires no explanation except to
say mat me second column shows the in
crer.se in tlie cost of living at the e-ad of
each quarter over w hat it was at the be
ginning of tne period:
I,ast quarter, 1SK0
First quarter, 18SKI
Second quarter, 1SU0..
Third quarter, 1S1MI
Fourth quarter, IKtW. .
First quarter, 1301
Second quarter. ISid..
Third quarter. lK'l.
lmi.ai
Km. St
loo. 43
1111.23
lmi.94
U9.56
101.11
mi .sit
im.t'.i
1H0.4M
101. H3
im.r7
lit.'. 15
0SI.K5
r c
- s
C Ci
5 f t
z c
tf-
W.09
imi.il
W.76
TO 62
W.lfi
100.38
W.fil
B8.U5
One hundred assumed as the price at the
Beginning or the time inquired into.
We find that during the last quarter of
tne year lesnt tne increased cost of living
over and above what it was during the
third quarter of that year the quarter
which was taken as the basis of the inves
tigation was $27,750, 000. For the first
quarter of the year 1890 the cost of living
over and above what it was during the
first quarter covered by the investigation
was $45,000,000. For the second quarter of
tne year 1S90 it was $15,250,000, and I desire
to call attention here to the fact t hat dur
ing the second quarter of the year 1890, be
fore the passage of the McKinley act, the
cost of living fell considerably below what
it was at the end of the first quarter. The
third quarter, which closed Oct. 1, 1890,
the very day on which the McKinley act
was approved, the increase was $12,000,000;
but during the next quarter, immediately
following the passage of the act, the in
crease was $45,750,000. The next quarter
the cost of living was still going up, and
the increase was $89,250,000; but the next,
the cost having begun to decline somewhat
from the point it had reached, it was $53,
750,000, making, in the aggregate, the in
creased cost of living to the people of the
United States during the period covered
by this investigation $28S,750,000.
Mr. George How long?
Mr. Carlisle For twenty-four months,
excluding September, 1889, and the three
which were taken as a basis. The in
creased cost of living to the people of the
United States during the twenty-four
months was $2SS, 750.000; lr.it during the
last quarter covered by this investigation,
taking the three months tojrri !.er, there
wr.s a slight decline of l.V.oOUis of 1 per
cent, in the cost of living, amounting t-.i
f',7."O,OC0, which I have deducted from the
gross sum. showing a net iii.-r.-.-e in the
cost of living of fC'".U)(i.iX ihe l.-irgi-.-j
proportion of which, or -;81,0',i,!V:), oc
curred after the p:t-sn;Te .f t h-: Mi'Ir.l,-;
act, and a lr:rge part of t he ? !(:;'..(-v) ji"
crease which occurred be fori- t hat I ! i
directly attributable to t!.e fact MmttVt
bill was pending in congress with ah.u.:
absolute knowledge on the par; of the m i
pie mat it would pass i;nu n. c-.cic a I i-.v.
Now. Mr. President, how dot s t his com
pare with the statement m.-u'.c ly the
a tor from Rhode Islcnd, l!:t th'Te v.j
such a decline in the cost of Lvin:.- .h;ri;.
that period as to represent a savin-;
325,0(0,000 per annum to t he ;. ';! ' f ': '
Lni ted States? Here is 2S.",K'0,(!i'' .
to the cost of living durir:i: thiit ihmV
which the people have paid; r.:. , i:- r-.i;
ter what decline may have ci.ine at '
close, not one cent of it will ever be re::-.
bursed to those who were cotr.pcl!ed to i x
pend it for the necessaries of life. Ti.;
money is gone from them gone forever -and
even though prices mav continue to
decline without fluctuation af tc-r t he y.
juration of the investigation, it does not
follow that such decline or a greater one
would not have taken place if the McKin
ley act had never been passed. On the
contrary, if the McKinley act had never
been passed there would have been a
greater decline undoubtediv. and this
enormous additional expenditure of $2S5,
000,000 would not have be-en extorted from
the people. Mr. Grosvenor, a centleman
whom this committee must indorse, be
cause it had him employed for some time
to assist in collecting prices, made an in
vestigation covering the eighteen months
just preceding the beginning of this in
vestigation, June 1, 18S9, which showed
that the prices of commodities in this
country had declined 14 per cent, during
that tiane.
Mr. George During what -car?
Mr. Carlisle During i.e eighteen
months next preceding the beginning of
this investigation. Fortunately it so hap
pened that our investigation bewail the
very day that his investigation closed, and,
while his investigation showed that dur
ing the eighteen mouths covered by it the
prices of commodities declined in this
country 14 per cent., all the senator from
Khode Island can now show is that after
twenty-four months of unnecessarily high
prices the cost of living on one day at tha
very end of the period had declined 44-100ths
of 1 per cent. !
Is it not perfectly clear, then, that the
proposition with which I started out, that
the McKinley act had interfered with and
arrested this natural tendency toward a
decline in the prices of commodities, was
correct, and that by its passage the people
of the United States were deprived of
those benefits which the people of all other
civilised countries in the world were re
alizing on account of modern improve
ments and discoveries and the practical
application of them in their industrial and
commercial pursuits?
But, Mr. President, we also investigated
the wholesale prices of the same articles
daring the same period in several different
cis and in variot;. establishment in
iach city, and my statement would not be
complete without giving the result of that
Investigation. That investigation shows,
.liat is the common observation of every
body, that violesale prices respond more
promptly to disturbing causes than retail
prices. The reasons for this are obvious.
In the ITf-t place the wholesale trade is
located almost exclusively in the oreat
cities, and is in the bands of comparative
ly a few men, while the retail trade is scat
tered all over the country and is in the
hands of a great many men.
The wholesale dealers and the manufac
turers of the goods they sell look forward
to coming events, keep themselves in
formed of movements in congress and else
where, and take advantage of them in ad
vance, while the retail dealer, as a general
rule, gives less attention to disturbing in
fluences, liecause he has his stock on hand,
purchased ut the old prices, aud he con
tinues to sell it substantially at the old
prices until he lays in a new stock at the
new prices.
An elaborate table on the fluctuations
of wholesale prices was here presented.
This table shows that during the four
months preceding Oct. 1, 1889, wholesale
prices had never risen above the normal or
initial point, except in August, and then
they were only 22-1 OOt lis of 1 per cent,
higher. In September they were lower
than the initial price, and they never
receded to that point again until August,
1891, a period of nearly two years, and then
they were enly 7-100ths of 1 per cent, be
low it.
The group of "cloths nnd clothing" se
lected by the committee for the purpose of
investigating wholesale prices contains
sixty-two articles in general use among
the people, and on the 1st of December,
18, when the Fifty-first congress assem
bled, the prices of only five of them had
advanced since the beginning of the pe
riod. The prices of thirteen of them had
fallen, and forty-five of them had neither
advanced nor declined. The tariff act
passed the house of representatives on the
21st day of May, 1890, and by the 1st of
June following the prices of sixteen 6f the
articles embraced in this group had in
creased, and any one who will examine the
report of the committee will see that from
the 1st elav of Aiiifust. 1S90. the articles
embraced in this important group, taking
them all together, never fell to their origi
nal or init ial price until Sept. 1, 1891, the
last day of the investigation, and then
they were only 2-100ths of 1 per cent, lower.
Increase In Wholesale Prices.
Now, Mr. President, by the use of this
table, which is a part of the unanimous
report of the committee, and assuming as
before that the annual expenditure for
consumption is $10,000,000,000 and the
monthly expenditure $833,333,333, we can
ascertain without difficulty the eff-ct
which the increase in wholesale priies
would have had upon the people of the
United States if the whole quantity of
commodities consumed during the period
covered by the investigation had been
sold by the wholesale dealers during that
time. That the whole quantity consumed
was not actually sold at wholesale during
that time is shown by the fact that the ag
gregate increase in- retail prices or in the
cost of living did not equal the aggregate
increase in wholesale prices.
On t he 1st day of October, 1SS9, upon the
basis just stated, which is less than the
total expenditure for consumption, the in
crease over the iuitial price was $5,150,000;
on the 1st day of November, 1SS9, it was
$7,833,333, and on the 1st day of December,
1889, it was $12,583,333. Congress met on
the first Monday in December, thecommit
tee on ways and means was appointed, and
it was soon well known to the country sub
stantial ly what its policy would be in ref
erence l tariff legislation, and on the 1st
day of .January, 1890, the increase of whole
sale prices over the prices prevailing at the
beginning tr the investigation was $18.-
50.000. Tl.e next month it was $20,400,000,
and then there was a slight decline from
that figure until Sept. 1, 1S90, when the in
crease was-$24,900,000. The McKinley bill
was approved Oct. 1, 1890. and from that
date the increase of wholesale prices con
tinued to grow larger month by month un
til on the 1st day of April, 1891. it was $35.-
416.6Q; But I will not detain the senate
by a further statement of these increases
in detail, but will insert the following
table, which will show that the total gross
increase rrom Oct. 1, ls, to July 1. 1891.
amounted to the sum of ?445,C18,8S5, but
during the months of July nnd August.
1891, there were small decreases, amount
ing to $3.10S,333, which, being deducted,
leaves a net increase of $442,510,552.
tKCICKASK IN
tCT. 1,
Oct. 1. 1M1
Nov. 1.
Hoc. 1. 1HN
Jan. 1. lK'.n
Fe b. 1. IKl
March 1. 1!HI
April 1. r:)
May 1. I1-;' ..
Juno 1. IX'-ll
July 1. ism
Anc. I. l"'.i
Scj.t. 1. V:
Oct. 1. V-w
Nov. 1, ISM)
Dec. 1. 1SM0
Jan. 1.
Feb. 1, IrS'l
March 1. 1S!1....
April 1. l.f.il
Mav 1. 1HM
June 1, ni
July 1. 1SU1
Total
Deductions:
Aue. 1. l'l.
Sept. 1, 1MU1.,
wholesale n;irrs fkom
uvj. -io ji lt i, is:n.
S't.i.vi.nnn
T.s::t.::i$
12.5s.l.:S)3
i.-i.7"n,)
!.)
lo.Ki.i.;i
1-2.,U1
2'l.4O0.(l
I7.:vei.:n
ls.TiKi.nm
1?,UI
24.!..V
24.1Mil.imO
tiVl,ll
2T.:KJt
30.150.(1(10
HO.Mb.Htiti
32.S.iO,iiiiO
8Ti.41H.tWlJ
&..::
21.770,0:
.... b.TSU.lWO
-$445,61S.6S5
8.r5,uuo
3,108,333
44.fl8.K5
3. 106,333
Total
Total iucrcases..
Total decreases..
Ket increases S4tJ.510.552
Notwithstanding these undeniable facts.
the senator from Iihode Island asserted, if
not in express terms, at least by necessary
inference, that the prices of commodities
and the cost of living declined during the
period covered by the investigation. He
Baid, "There can be no longer any question
as to the course of prices for the period
covered by the committee's investigation,"
and I think every one who heard his speech
understood tilm to maintain that prices
and the cost of living were lower during
that period than they were before.
Protection Did Not Help Wages.
But, Mr. President, I must pass on to
another subject. The committee also, as I
have already said, caused an investigation
to be made as to the rates of wages during
this same period in fifteen of what are
called general occupations, most of which
are aluiost entirely in the nonprotected in
dustries, as will be seen when I come to
Btate them, and in fifteen special occupa
tions which are highly protected by the
tariff law.
The result of that investigation is shown
by the report. The 1" teen general occupa
tions selected by the committee as fairly
representative of the rate of wages received
in all the general occupations in the coun
try were as follows, and I asks senators to
give their attention to them as I state
them, in order that they may determine
for themselves how far they are protected:
Baiters, blacksmiths, bricklayers I sup
pow there Is scarcely an yody who will in
sist that bricks can be laid in a wall "in
a foreign country and imported to this
country, and therefore a bricklayer is not
much protected by a tariff law; cabinet
makers, carpenters of whom the same
thing may be said as of bricklayers; com
mon laborers, farm laborers, machinists,
masons who lay stone in a wall which
canuot be imported molders of rron, paint
ers, pic.mbc-rs, stonecutters, tailors and
tinsmiths. These are the fifteen general
occupations selected by the committee, and
they are the occupations upon which the
rates of wages rose 75-100ths of 1 per cent
during the period covered by the investi
gation, and they were that much higher at
its close than they were at the beginning.
The senator from Rhode Island stated
generally, as will be seeu from his printed
speech, that the committee had found that
while there had been a decline in prices
there had been an increase of 75-100ths of 1
per cent, in wages, whereas I assert now,
with the tables before me, that the only
instances in which any increa.se of wages
occurred, taking the whole together, were
in those fifteen substantially unprotected
industries, and I will show presently that
in the fifteen highly protected industries
in which the rates of wages hail increased
before the McKinley bill passed there was
a decrease after it passed. If any of these
fifteen general occupations are or can be
protected or in any way assisted by the
tariff, it must be cabinet makers and
molders of iron, and yet, although the Mc
Kinley tariff act increased the duties on
household or cabinet furniture, the wages
of cabinet makers fell after its passage,
and although it reduced the duties upon
all forms of iron castings except hollow
ware, coated, glazed or tinned, the wages
in that occupation increased after its pas
sage. I do not make this statement for the
purpose of showing that the act itself in
creased wages in the one case or decreased
thc-m in the other. My purpose is simply
to show that the tariff does not affect
wages at all except to diminish their pur
chasing power, ltecause if it did we could
prove two wholly inconsistent propositions
to be true first, that tariffs raise wages,
and secondly that tariffs reduce wages.
The man who wants to employ labor does
just what is done by every other man who
wants to procure anything he gets it at
the very lowest rate at which the law of
supply and demand will enable him to get
it, tariff or no tariff. The employer pur
sues the same course, whether he is in a
free trade country or in a protective coun
try. The general statement made by the sen
ator from Rhode Island that the wages of
labor rose 75-100thsof 1 percent, during the
period of investigation was true only of
the fifteen unprotected occupations and
should have been qualified accordingly.
I have already said that we ascertained
the rates of wages in fifteen other indus
tries, and I will now enumerate them in
order that senators may determine for
themselves whether they are industries
which the tariff is intended to protect;
thev are the manufactures of bar irc.
boots and shoes, cotton goods, cotton and
woolen goods, crucible steel, flint glass,
green glass, lumber, machinery, pig iron,
steel ingots, steel blowers, steel rails, win- j
dow glass and woolen goods. Here are
fifteen of the most highly protected indus
tries in the United States, and the wanes
of the laborers employed in them fell 89
lOOtbs of 1 per cent, after the passace of the
McKinley act, notwithstanding the rise
of 75-100ths of 1 per cent, in the wages of
laborers engaged in the nonprotected in
dustries. One of the most significant facts dis
closed by the report in relation to this sub
ject is that the rates of wages in these pro
tected industries had increased C5-100ths of
1 per cent, between the beginning of the
investigation and the approval of the tariff
act on Oct. 1, 1S90, and consequently the
entire decrease of 89-lOOths of 1 percent, oc
curred after this law was passed for the
benefit of the workingman.
Now, Mr. President, on these questions
concerning wholesale and retail prices, cost
of living and rates of wages, I have pre
sented the figures made by the statistician
of the committee, based upon the actual
returns made to us by the agents who were
sent out, not to take anybody's statement
or anybody's testimony or hear anybody's
argument, but to go to the books showing
t he actual transactions in the retail stores
in these seventy cities; to go to the pay
rolls in the manufacturing establishments,
and take from them the exact amount of
wages paid on the first of each month
covered by this investigation, and I confi
dently submit the results to the senate
and the country as a complete vindication
of the judgment pronounceel by the people
upon the policy of high protection at the
election in 1S90. There was no attempt at
misrepresentation or deception except upon
the part of those who hail become alarmed
at the consequences of their own favorite
measure of legislation. The jeople were
not deceived then and they will not be de
ceived now by any false deductions made
from this report, or by any frantic appeals
to save the country from the imaginary
horrors of free trade. i
A Tax on Poor People's Clothes.
As I have already said, the articles se
1 ected by the committee were, with a few
insignificant exceptions, the products of
our own country, and the sums which I
have given to the senate as representing
the increase in prices and in the cost of '
living are based upon them and not upon '
any rise which may have taken place in
the prices of imported articles on account
of the very large increases ir. the rates of
duty contained in the tariff act of 1S90.
Why, Mr. President, the increased price of
the $19,591 ,C50 worth of woolen goods which
were imported into this country between
Oct. 1. iStto. the date of the passage of the
McKinley bill, and the SOth day of June,
1891. the end of that fiscal year, amounted
to many millions of dollars.
The report of imports and consumption
for the fiscal year 1891, furnished to us by
the treasury department, embraces and
mingles together all the importations
which were made during that year, for the
purpose of showing the ad valorem rate of
tax, whether they were made before or
after Oct. 1, 1890. and therefore reduces the
average ael valorem rate of taxation to a
much lower figure than it actually was
under the McKinley act. At the expense
of a great deal of time and labor I have se
lected from this report those articles of
woolen manufacture which were imported
after Oct. 1, 1890, and which therefore
paid the increased rates of duty imposed
by the McKinley tariff act, and I find the
result to be that the total importations of
woolen manufactures, including yarns,
which cost us abroad $19,591,050, paid an
ad valorem rate of 92.84 per cent. The
amount of duty paid on these goods was
$18,192,338, 6o that it cost, without includ
ing anything for insurance, commissions,
freight or interest or any other charge,
$37,785,080 to lay down in New York goods
which cost abroad $19,591,650.
An elaborate table was here presented,
showing the imports of woolen goods from
Oct. 1, 1890, to June 30. 1891.
Let ua take for Illustration a quality of
dress goods in most common use among
the people. The total valueabroad of that
class of goods imported after the passage
of the McKinley act wr.s ?V2S0,S41, the tax
on them was 45,423.422, the ad valorem
rate of taxation upon this $5,230,841 worth,
of goods purchased and consumed by our
people was 102.70 per cent. The cost of
these goods abroad was 22.8 cents per
square yard, the tax was 23.42 per square
yard, and, adding the tax, it made tha
total cost to lay them down in New York,
without any charge for commissioned
freight or insurance, 45.70 per yard, so
that the goods which cost abroad $5,280,841
cost the importer at New York, without
any of the other usual charges, $10,704,264.
But we are told by the author of tha
McKinley act that we ought not to be dis
turbed about this, because the foreigner
pays the tax. If so, here is the most re
markable instance of disinterested benev
olence ever witnessed in a commercial
transaction between people of different
countries, for the foreigner actually gave
to the people of the United States between
Oct. 1, 1890, and June 30, 1891, $5,280,841
worth of these goods and paid them mora
than $142,000 in money to induce them to
take them.
The zods of which I am now speaking
constitute the class most largely imported
and sold to the masses of the people of the
United States, rot to rich neonle. but to
pior people Mid people in moderate cir
cumstances, as scnacors will see when I
give the description of the goods.
I think that anylxxly who examines this
table, which makes a correct exhibit of
the imtKrtations of these goods after tha
passage of the McKinley act. and the rates
of taxation upon them, will scarcely ever
contend hereafter that the foreign pro
ducer pays the duty he will go back to
the old "delusion" with which my friond
from Iowa (Mr. Allison) says he was af
flicted in 1ST0, that the American con
sumer pays at least a part of it.
Mr. Allison I have not gotten over that
yet.
Mr. Carlisle The senator 6ays he has
not recovered yet. But the senator may
believe now that the foreign producer pays
some part of the tax upon articles imported
into this country. If he does, he has,
either by mistake or otherwise, assisted in
making a gross misappropriation of tha
public money in the McKinley act, for
which he voted. That act provides that
when raw materials subject to duty ara
imported into the United States and con
verted here into manufactured articles
which are exported for sale abroad to tha
citizens of other countries, the domestie
manufacturer, producer or exporter shall
have a drawback equal to the amount of
duty paid less I per cent. If the foreigner
pays that duty, why in the name of com
mon sense and common honesty do we pass
a law to pay it back to the Standard Oil
company, or to somebody else who exports
oils, meats or cans made from imported
tin plate An honest legislator who be
lieves the foreigner pays the tax would in
sist upon giving it back to the foreigner
who sold us the tin plate out of which tha
cans were manufactured, and not to tha
corporations and others who convert that
material into cans ami then export them
and their contents to be sold abroad to tha
people of other countries at lower prices
than they can be sold to their own fellow
citizens. I therefore feel justified in say
ing that no gentleman who supported tha
McKinley a-.-t in cong ress, nor Mr. McKin
ley himself, although he goes about tha
country proclaiming that the foreigner
pays the duty, really believes a word of it
But I tender nn apology to the senate for
attempting to discuss such an absurd,
proposition.
Now, Mr. President, while speaking of
tin plate I ought to refer to a statement
made by the senator from Rhode Island,
that the people of the United States paid
to the AVelsh manufacturers of that articls
in the year 1S91 seventy-six cents per box
more than the profits which they were
realizing before that time. This is un
doubtedly too true. It is certainly true
that the McKinley act was a great bless
ing to the Welsh manufacturers of tin
plate, and enabled them to take from the
people of the United States, as I shall pro
ceed to show, many millions of dollarsover
and above the profits which they were
making before its passage.
The senator here presented tables show
ing the cost of producing tin plate in Wales
aud the advance in price there in anticipa
tion of the McKinley bill, and continued:
It appears therefore that the people of
the United States, before the increased
rate of duty on t in plate took effect under
the McKinle-y act, paid, not to the impor
ters, not to the government, not to tha
dealers here, but elirectly into the pockets
of the Welsh tin plate manufacturers, the
sum of $4,0-9.750 as a surplus profit on their
sales, which was considerably more than
half the value of thc-ir plant manufacture
of that article.
An Injustice or the Tariff.
Ir. President, it is a broad statement to
make, but the McKinley act increased the
duty on every fabric that contains a single
thread or fiber of wool, and in most cases
the increase was very large. If an article
of silk is found to contain a thread of wool
for ornamentation or for any other purpose,
it becomes subject to the woolen goods
duty, which, even in the case of the cheap
est woolen fabrics used by the poor, is
much higher than the duty on the finest
silk fabrics used by the rich.
I ha ve here a number of samples of woolen
ami worsted goods imported tinder the Mc
Kinley act, with statements showing their
cost abroad in 1S89 and 1890. their cost
abroad now, the duty imposed upon them
in 1889 and 1890, the duty imposed npon
them now, and the increased cost to lay
them down at New York to the consumer.'
Elaborate tables were presented.
The prices abroad have fallen necessarily
because the cost of the raw material, wool
and cotton, has gone down in the market;
but the people of the United States, by tha
passage of the tariff act and the imposition
of a higher rate of duty upon these goods
have been wholly deprived af the benefits
which they should have received, and
ought to have received on account of tha
decreased cost of the materials entering
into the manufacture of the articles they
consume. The cotton grower and the wool
grower alike are compelled to take lower
prices for their products and to pay higher
prices for the goods manufactured from
them.
The Protected Manufacturer.
The necessary effect of the McKinley act
is to enaljle the manufacturers of these
articles at home to keep up the prices to a
certain figure, no matter what may be the
diminution in the cost of their raw mate
rial or in the w ages of their laborers, be
cause the high duty protects them against
competition abroad so long as they keep
their price-s just below the point which
would enable the importer to bring them
in and realize a pront after paying the
duty. What that point is the domestic
manufacturer always knows very well, be
cause he keeps himself informed in rela
tion to the foreign prices of the articles ha
produces, and he therefore permits impor
tations in two cases only: First, when he
cannot produce the particular quality of,
goods at all, and secondly, when he cannot;
produce them in sufficient quantities to
supply the home demand. j
A
I -
1 .-
I i. iuei.ii.ali . .U..--l r. mmm .. -p--... Wm '-.. 1. '- . -J -I SI . .... I .4. I II ml .'

xml | txt